ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
24,
1986
ALTON PACKAGING CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 85—145
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. RICHARD KISSEL, MARTIN,
CRAIG, CHESTER
& SONNENSCHEIN,
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.
MR. WILLIAM INGERSOLL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
D.
Dumelle):
This matter comes before
the Board upon
a permit appeal
filed on October
1,
1985 on behalf of Alton Packaging
Corporation
(Alton).
Alton requests
that the Board
reverse the
August 27,
1985 decision by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(Agency)
denying Alton’s’application for
renewal of
an
operating permit
for its Alton mill.
Alton
is
a fully integrated company
in the pulp and paper
industry engaged
in the manufacture and sale
of paperboard and
paperboard packaging products which
is headquartered in Alton,
Illinois.
Alton operates
a mill
in Alton, Illinois which employs
about
350 people and produces approximately 600 tons of
paperboard per day which
is then converted
into paperboard
manufacturing products
for corrugated shipping containers.
In
the production
of paperboard products, Alton utilizes boilers
to
produce the
stream required for heating
and process use.
Two of
these boilers, Boilers
6
&
7, are the subject of
this permit
appeal.
(Pet.
Brief pp.
1—2).
Boilers
6
&
7 are pulverized, wet bottom boilers.
Coal
is
pulverized
to
a fine powder and blown
into the boilers.
Ash is
both emitted through the vented
air
as well
as collected
in the
wet ash pit.
The exhaust air
from the boilers passes through
mechanical
collectors (multi—clones) and then through
electrostatic precipitators and then vented
to the atmosphere
through two separate 192—foot stacks.
There
is no control device
to deal with s02 emissions.
When needed,. low sulfur
coal is
burned
to comply with applicable emission limits
for SO2.
(Pet.
Brief
p.
2).
69-234
—2—
On January 21,
1983, Alton
filed
a renewal permit
application with
the Agency for its Alton mill.
Alton waived the
90—day decision period until
the Board
issued
a final order
in
PCB 83—55
(site—specific rule)
and PCB 83—49
(variance
).
The
Board dismissed
these proceedings on August
1, 1985.
The Agency
denied Alton’s permit application
on August 27,
1985 for the
following
reasons:
I.
Based upon information submitted to the Agency,
Boilers
6
arid
7 presently emit sulfur dioxide at the average
rate of 4.9 lbs per million Btu,
an amount
in excess of
the applicable emission limit of 1.8 lbs per million
Btu of
35
Ill. Adm. Code 214.141.
2.
The Agency’s ambient SO2 monitor
in Alton recorded
a
violation of the primary 24 hour SO2 standard during
1984.
Based upon
a recent study performed
by the
Agency,
Boilers
6
and
7 appear
to have been the major
contributor
to this violation.
Boilers
6 and
7 thus
may cause violations
of
35
Ill.
Adrn. Code 201.141 and
243.122(a) (2).
The first ground
for
the Agency’s denial
is not presently at
issue.
Alton filed
a petition for variance
(PCB 83—49) within 20
days after
the effective date
of the rule which established the
1.8 lbs/mmBtu SO2 emission limitation,
thereby staying the
applicability of
this emission
limitation pursuant
to Section
38(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
The Board
subsequently dismissed the variance petition and the Agency
contended that the stay was no longer
in effect.
However, Alton
appealed
the Board’s decision
to the appellate court which
granted Alton’s motion
to stay the applicability
of the 1.8
lbs/rnmBtu SO2 emission limitation
to Alton’s mill.
Therefore,
the Agency’s first ground
for denial
is not presently applicable
and will
not be considered.
Concerning
the second ground
for denial,
the Agency’s
ambient SO2 monitor
in Alton recorded two excursions from the
primary SO2 24—hour standard
in November 1984.
(The primary 24—
hour ambient air quality standard for SO2
is 0.14 ppm).
The
first occurred during
a 24—hour period on November
6 and
7.
During this period,
the maximum 24—hour average was 0.148 ppm.
The second occurred during
a
24—hour period
on November
25 and
26.
During
this period, the maximum 24—hour average was 0.159
ppm.
A violation of
the primary SO2 24—hour standard occurs when
two excursions
from the standard occur within
a one—year
period.
The Agency conducted
an excursion study
to determine the
major contributor(s)
to the violation.
The excursion study
determined
that Alton’s Boilers
6
and
7 appear
to have been the
major contributor
to the violation.
Thus,
the Agency concluded
69-235
—3—
that Boilers
6 and
7 may cause violations of
35
Ill. Adm. Code
201.141
and 243.122
in
the future and denied Alton’s permit
request.
Alton’s position
is
that whether
or not
it was
a contributor
to the violation
of the primary SO2 24—hour standard
is not a
proper basis
up on which
the Agency can deny
a permit;
rather,
the Agency must have
in the record that this will occur
in the
future
and the record does not contain
that.
(R.
p.
9).
Alton
supports its position by questioning the accuracy of the recorded
excursion on November
6
and
7.
Alton contends that the November
6 and
7 excursion was not an excursion because the range of
accuracy of the monitored
readings could range,
based
on
a
95
confidence interval,
anywhere from 9
too low
to
5
too high.
Furthermore, Alton
contends that the November
6 and
7 excursion
may have been lower
since the precision check
of
the monitor
before
the recorded excursion indicated that the
recorded sample
was 5.5
higher
than what the real value was.
Lastly, Alton
contends that the Agency’s excursion study was not predictive
of
the
future
and, consequently,
the Agency could not determine
whether
the operation
of Alton’s boilers would in the future
cause
a violation of the primary SO2 24—hour
standard.
(Pet.
Brief pp.
7—10).
The Agency responds
to these arguments by asserting that
the
November
6 and
7 excursion was
in fact an excursion.
The Agency
asserts that the employee who testified on the
range
of accuracy
was merely expressing his statistical
confidence level and that
under IJSEPA guidelines
the reported data
is not to be
corrected.
The Agency also contends that the precision check
indicating that
the monitor was recording slightly higher
readings does not affect the accuracy of the reported data.
This
just means
that
the baseline
reference had drifted above
zero and
the drift had corrected itself before the November
6 and
7
excursion.
(R.
p 50).
Lastly,
the Agency contends that even
though
the excursion study was not designed
to predict what
emission levels would protect air quality,
some conclusions
could
be drawn about
the future.
The Agency employee, based
on his
expertise, concluded
that future excursions were possible
if
Alton were allowed
to continue operations as they were since the
meteorological conditions during
the excursions were not unusual
and other SO2 sources which would normally be expected
to impact
the monitor were not operating or operating at well below
allowable limits.
(Ag. Brief pp.
7—10).
The issue
to be addressed by the Board
in
this permit appeal
is whether the information provided by Alton
to the Agency
sufficiently proves that issuing a permit for Alton’s mill will
not cause
a violation of the Act and Board regulations.
This
issue
is
to be decided
by the Board based on the record before
the Agency when
it made its decision.
Section 40
of the Act
places
the burden of proof
in
a permit appeal
on the petitioner
69-236
—4—
to show that the Agency’s decision was wrong.
For the following
reasons,
the Board
finds that Alton has not met this burden and
affirms the Agency’s denial of
an operating permit for Alton’s
mill.
Alton’s position in this permit appeal centers on the
impropriety of the Agency’s data which were used
to determine
that the November
6
and
7 excursion was
in fact an excursion;
and
that Alton’s boilers may in the
future cause
a violation
of
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 201.141 and 243.l22(a)(2).
The Board
is not
persuaded by any of Alton’s arguments.
Specifically, the.Board
finds
that the November
6
and
7 excursion was
in fact an
excursion.
Mr.
David Kolaz, Manager
of
the Agency’s Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring Section,
testified that USEPA guidelines
specifically state that the measured data
is not
to be corrected
for
any measurements
of precision
or accuracy, either directly
corrected or corrected in performing evaluations
to determine
attainment
of
a standard.
(R.
p.
33).
Though
a monitor that
is
consistently taking faulty readings should be
removed from the
state’s monitoring system,
Alton has not provided any information
to the Board
that would demonstrate that the Barton School
monitor which recorded the November, 1984 excursions was
consistently
taking faulty readings.
Alton also argues that
the November
6
and
7
reading of
0.148
ppm was
5
too high;
the actual reading being 0.141 ppm.
Alton
contends that such
a tenuous and
de rninimus number would not seem
to
be a proper basis on which
to deny a permit,
though Alton
never acknowledges the contrary position that the November
6
and
7 reading was
9
too low.
Alton’s contention
is seriously
misplaced.
Under
the current
federal and state
air pollution
control scheme,
an area is either designated
as attainment or
non—attainment for criteria pollutants based on the best
available information.
This information includes the data
obtained from the
state’s ambient air quality monitors.
Once
an
area
is designated as non—attainment,
regardless
of the degree of
the non—attainment,
major consequences flow.
These consequences
include the requirement that all existing major sources
in the
area install state—of—the—art pollution control technology,
an
increased demand
for
state and federal resources
to correct the
problem and
an increased risk of having sanctions imposed on the
area which may include construction bans on new sources
and the
loss of millions
of dollars
in federal funding.
These are hardly
de minimus consequences.
Lastly,
the determination of attainment
or non—attainment
is ultimately made by the USEPA using
its
guidelines.
In view of these consequences,
the Board cannot
lightly dismiss the testimony that TJSEPA guidelines place
the
recorded values
as
a violation of the primary SO2 24—hour
standard.
The Board also concludes that based
on the information
received from the excursion study,
the Agency could
reasonably
69-237
—5—
conclude that Alton’s boilers may cause
a violation of
35
Ill.
Adrn. Code 201.141 and 243.122(a)(2). While Alton questions the
predictive capacity of
the Agency’s excursion study,
it offers no
data
to suggest that the Agency’s conclusions were unreasonable.
Alton’s position
in this permit appeal
is misdirected.
In
this permit appeal,
the burden
is not on the Agency
to prove that
a violation will occur
in the future.
Rather,
the burden
is on
Alton
to prove
that
a violation will not occur
in the future.
Alton has not provided the Board with any information which would
enable
the Board
to conclude that
a violation of the primary SO2
24—hour standard will not occur
in the future.
Based on the
record before
the Agency,
the Board finds that the information
provided
by Alton to the Agency fails
to demonstrate
that issuing
a permit for Alton’s mill will not cause
a violation of the Act
and Board regulations.
Therefore,
the Board affirms the Agency’s
denial of
a permit for Alton’s mill.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The
Board hereby affirms
the Agency’s denial of
an operating
permit for Alton’s mill located at Alton Packaging Corporation’s
facility
in Alton,
Illinois.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M. Gum, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
the
______________
day of
____________,
1986 by
a vote
of
-
.
Dorothy
M. Gdnn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
69-238